DUST Search - Aerial Vehicle Ideas

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Aerial Vehicle Ideas

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1272	Posted - 2013.04.08 15:45:00 - [1] - Quote Nice to see another well thought out thread on this subject. I really hope we end up with both Gunships and Fighters somewhere down the line. The one thing I'm afraid of is the possibility of having a "multirole" asset that tries to do both and is terrible, kinda like the attack aircraft in Planetside 2.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1279	Posted - 2013.04.09 01:02:00 - [2] - Quote Silver-Ace wrote: When I was reading the comment from Mobius Wyvern I considered maybe the fighter bomber could be to multi-role so I thought of away so they would be more focused on air to ground combat but still have some defensive capabilities to help them survive until help arrives. Lvl 4: Fighter Bomber - This will be a heavy and slower version of the fighter and will be have two seats a pilot and co-pilot. The pilot will be the one flying and maneuvering onto the targets and will be in control the frontal guns and air to ground weapons. The co-pilot will be operating a 360 degree rotating turret that will provide defense against enemy aircraft. The co-pilot will also be in charge of all the countermeasures. I also liked the comment by Halador Osiris with the Command Aircraft so heres an revision of the Heavy Aircraft Lvl 5: Command Aircraft - These will be the biggest and slowest aircraft that will act has a command ship that will have a massive radar radius so they can guide friendly aircraft into range of there targets. They could also be fitted to have big passenger capacity like 6-12 to deploy them for high altitude drops. It also will have the ability to fit remote shield and armor repair modules to repair friendly aircraft in flight. So it will act has the logistics in the sky but it will need to defend itself until help arrives with small turrets and aerial countermeasures. If there are any other ideas please post them maybe CCP is reading . Don't get me wrong, btw. I love the idea of multi-role aircraft, but only within the more specific role of fixed-wing or VTOL. What I don't want is an aircraft that tries to be a jet and an attack helicopter at the same time. DARPA was funding the X-50 project for several years which sought to create a rotary-wing aircraft that could lock the central rotor to act as a wing and allow it to fly like a jet in order to get to strike zones faster and save fuel. It was so cost ineffective and overall inefficient that they eventually gave up, and they weren't even trying to make it operate like a jet. What you want to avoid in vehicle design is trying to make a vehicle that is attempts to be a "Jack-of-all-Trades" and ends up as a master of none. I love the general layouts you made for roles for these aircraft, and I really hope CCP Blam checks out this thread.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1281	Posted - 2013.04.09 01:51:00 - [3] - Quote Ops Fox wrote: I dont think fighters and bombers need to be two different class just one Foward moving class that can be either fit as a fighter or bomber depending on whats fitted to it. I would also hate to see a light air class be solely dedicated to the gunship role, i would like to see option for fitting a Light Air/"gunship" as a scout, on site targeting(be pretty cool to see a aircraft use target painters and guide in fighters and artillery strikes). just remember there are three class we know of Light, Medium, and Heavy and seeing as a Dropshipis considered heavy i could see the fighter being a medium craft with a more gunship like vehicle being However, we also have confirmation that each size class will host multiple vehicle types, just like the new suit weight classes. As well, the requirements for an anti-air and anti-ground aircraft are vastly different and in some ways antithetical to each other. The idea of the multirole would be to allow you to bridge the gap in exchange for somewhat reduced performance in both as compared to a specialized vehicle.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1281	Posted - 2013.04.09 02:14:00 - [4] - Quote Ops Fox wrote: I mean more along the ways of allowing general frames to be geared towards either AA AG or something else with modules. how you fit them would decide what they did on the battle field rather than what class they were. For example a Light Air frame would look and operate very similar to an attack gunship rather than a figher or transport but you wouldn't have to Fit it for AG you could possible load up on stealth equipment and along with the passenger turn it into a covert ops transport simply because of the modules you fit or turn it into a mobile electronic warfare rig. another example is the fighter or bomber class rather than having this be a separate thing just junk the whole thing into medium frame and what modules you fit decided whether its a fighter or bomber. what i would like to see a light medium and heavy frame version of VTOL or Forward flight vehicles. Imagine having a medium class FF that would be well suited to interceptor or bomber role depending on how you fit it while at the same time a VTOL medium frame that would act like a mobile EW unit or Logi unit. Oh, weight classes would have me all over this game until the end of time. As an example, one of the core features of the PSP game Ace Combat X was that the more advanced aircraft could be adjusted to fit different roles with modules. I'd love to see an even deeper version of that system in this game.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1281	Posted - 2013.04.10 17:35:00 - [5] - Quote Jakar Umbra wrote: What if for earlier levels you have aircraft that can be specced in a multitude of ways according to what you put on it, but as you get higher and spec along certain paths you can use aircraft more suited to specific roles and therefore would be more effective at them. This would reward you for speccing into more specific skills and a perferred role. It would more or less be similar to what the HAVs seem to be becoming where the first tier is your general one then we would get the enforcers, marauders, and whatever else may come. That's excellent. A lot like the current "Tiericide" program for EVE where T1 is inferior to T2 but T2 has to be used a certain way, while T1 can do pretty much whatever you set it up for.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1282	Posted - 2013.04.11 00:53:00 - [6] - Quote Jakar Umbra wrote: Ulysses Knapse wrote: This doesn't sound right. It sounds less like New Eden and more like something I don't recognize. Perhaps you could elaborate on this, as I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm new to New Eden myself, but what I understand it to be is a place full of politics, betrayal, wars, battles, alliances, grudges, plots and conspiracies. What we are talking about here are the tools by which to execute and maintain these things. At least that's what I understood New Eden to be. Kitten Commander wrote: I would rather they start off on the smaller side with attack aircraft to begin with. The abilities of aircraft are going to be completely dependent on map size and spread. With the current maps, the plane would be constantly doing figure 8s to stay within the red zone and would be severely OP considering how bunched everything is. This will be a good idea when map sizes are at least a couple magnitudes larger than they are right now. As I said in the other DS thread.. what I would like right now is a ship based on the DS but with only 2-3 spaces on it with a front mount turret and two fixed side pods. Front mount - blaster/rail/missile/etc Side mount - vehicle version of swarms/plasma cannon etc (have to aim these with the ship) To balance these out, the tanks should have an available turret that is similar to swarms. These things are by no means intended to apply to the current map sizes we have now. They are ideas for when we reach the large scale battles we are hoping to eventually reach. The ship to which you refer with the fixed weaponry for the pilot is essentially what we refer to as the attack ship. Also a swarm launcher variant turret for HAVs would be somewhat acceptable provided the countermeasures requested are also implemented. Mobius, the Aviation Instruments part of the requests covers that sort of thing. Flying in first person is practically impossible as is. Also the ability to free look while flying in first person is of course a good idea. Just offering some suggestion on how to make it look all futuristic and such. Ulysses Knapse wrote: And they aren't the most detailed, so I honestly can't tell what the author is trying to suggest here. We're talking more about names to clarify what they would be for. Also, part of what we were talking about earlier was having role-less aircraft as the base level, and then working up to more specialized vehicles such as we have now with the LAVs and HAVs, and soon with Dropships as well. Based on that, a Fighter would be specialized for attacking other Fighters, whereas a Fighter Bomber would be a multi-role design to hit ground and air targets, but wouldn't be as good at either as a more specialized aircraft.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1283	Posted - 2013.04.11 19:59:00 - [7] - Quote Shouper of BHD wrote: Kitten Commander wrote: Shouper of BHD wrote: I wouldn`t worry about it (the Author of the OP), vehicles are very well orginized, although CCP said there was a 'Gunship', I think we can agree they were refaring to the DS further more a varient of the DS (or the HAA). fighters/fighter bombers are LAA (Light Attack Aircraft), something we do know are that there are madruager & Enforcer HAVs. Understandiong that both the LAA and HAV is ment for direct combat they will have attacker varients more often then not, so what are thoose varients for? the Madruagers are HP vehicles ment to deal out damage as they get the job done, LAAs will most definitly have 1 varient based off of this, now the Enforcer, the Enforcers are weak and slow but deal great sums of damage, I`m 100% sure they will have a LAA varient with this same purpose that is used for strafe runs (aka your fighter bomber). DS (DropShip): are used for for support and you can take it for an expensive airial logi bro, main purpose is for transport so the Logi varient is the outstanding varient for this, but a DS are used as triagers aswell and favored as gunships so you will also find a Assualt varient for battle, I would hope for a Trieger varient aswell in the later future. HAA: not much is known, but it has to be carried by a RDV so not much larger then a tank, I would guess a airborn tank like vehicle that has to circle its targets like a Vulture but I truly don`t know. btw, would you like to see a little gameplay of the LAA in the last engine?: skip to 5:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED-YF-v7WCw thats the gallante LAA, I can`t confirm what avrient since they havn`t released the names of the varients and they would all look the same anyways Is it sad that I am jealous of that game? Lets see - Large map - Complex building environments - The rocket launcher is a secondary - LAA Imagine that with the updated modeling and game play we have now well, they all are coming except #3... attatchments to guns have been lightly mentioned such as scopes/iron sights, but it has alot to do with the User Market. We've actually been told that the art assets are already deploy-able, and all their waiting on is the actual system to be implemented. Also, unless you're talking about a small AV weapon the size of a LAW (Light Anti-Tank Weapon), there's no way something like that should be a secondary. Besides, the AV grenades are more than powerful enough as it is. On the subject of AV though, unless we get another buff to Swarm Launcher speed, we're going to need a heavier and faster missile launcher designed to take down fast-moving air targets.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1283	Posted - 2013.04.12 01:51:00 - [8] - Quote Ops Fox wrote: @Shouper Gunships should be light aircraft not Heavy aircraft, that way they can stay closer to the infantry without being an easy target. If they were Heavy aircraft then their size and lock time(if different lock time is ever implemented) would make them poorly suited to staying near the ground to support infantry. A smaller Air to Ground vehicle would present a smaller target and could more easily maneuver around in tighter spaces infantry frequent like streets. If it was a heavy craft then it couldn't get as close increasing the change to miss your target. there also the fact that you want your gunship to be harder to detect so that way infantry can just take cover prepare for your arrival. Infantry will have more than enough firepower to tear anything out of the skies so trying to tank it is not a good idea, especially for a vehicle that has to actively be near hostile targets to work. Fighter/bombers should be heavy so they can maximize the damage they do in a single strike and so they can more easily rule the skies. if a gunship was bigger than them then there is a change that a gunship could out do a fighter, which is bad for a fighter. I would personally figure that a Gunship would be a Light aircraft, Fighter a medium, and Attacker a Heavy. Kinda fits how those are sized IRL, and means that you can make an educated guess as to what you're dealing with when looking at the icon on the radar. I still think it'd be nice to have a separate icon for VTOL assets, but one step at a time.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1283	Posted - 2013.04.12 14:23:00 - [9] - Quote Shouper of BHD wrote: Ops Fox wrote: Shouper of BHD wrote: well, LAAs are fighters, they even had a video of a CCP employee flying a gallante varient so they aren`t gunships. Link and even if they are nothing is set in stone yet. It would make sense for a gunship like vehicle to be a light aircraft so it can maneuver and stay on the infantry. where as a fighter should rule the open skies with lots of damage potential. here ya go my freind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED-YF-v7WCw @ the 5:20 mark he calls it in. although it is on the old engine I will bet on that the avrage LAA will be: 1 passenger (whom is the pilot), 2 small turrets, always accelorating but might have the option to slow or speed up its speed by small mesures, high altidtude capibilitys. most liekly a SS turret module since you can have an S and another S turret module (becuse the must be the same turret). good for strafe runs, railgun LAAs with compressed + damage mods will most liekly be able to take out a tank if positions right (I fly DSes and knowing S railguns are getting buffed to be ebtter precise damage then S missles, and the tanks that are profisinaly fitted (Gunlogis and Sagerises) I can tell that since both shots hit the same spot). beside the standard varient I would assume an Enforcer like varient is most likely. seeing how CCP has the tanks I would assume a HAA would be the gunship. Well, when I think Gunship, I think a Cobra or Apache. Or a Hokum or Tiger if you're in Europe. Even the smallest Fighter aircraft we make today have a larger body than an attack helicopter due in part to the fact that you want it to be as narrow at the front as possible to make it harder to shoot down. As far as weapons, I would think that aerial vehicles and possibly even MTACs would require a new class of body-mounted fixed-aim weapons, especially when you consider that guided air-to-air missiles are pretty much a necessity.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1283	Posted - 2013.04.12 19:09:00 - [10] - Quote Kitten Commander wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Well, when I think Gunship, I think a Cobra or Apache. Or a Hokum or Tiger if you're in Europe. Even the smallest Fighter aircraft we make today have a larger body than an attack helicopter due in part to the fact that you want it to be as narrow at the front as possible to make it harder to shoot down. As far as weapons, I would think that aerial vehicles and possibly even MTACs would require a new class of body-mounted fixed-aim weapons, especially when you consider that guided air-to-air missiles are pretty much a necessity. You wouldnt need completely new mechanics for the weapon systems on these. LAA (1 person) 3 Fixed hardpoints (not moveable turrets) 1 x medium front mount that is a blaster 2 x small mounts that could either be dumbfire missles or lock on swarms (same damage potential) The damage from these should not be able to one-shot a tank. The speed/maneuverability should make up for the damage difference. VTOL Gunship (2 person) 3 slots - 1 turret and 2 x hardpoints Introduce a weapon that is similar to the HMG for the turret with a little bit more of a range buff but more bullet spread (same damage) 2 x small mounts that have same options as LAA 1 x pilot who manages the 2 x small mounts 1 x gunner who manages the turret As to the first part, the only missiles we have right now are dumbfire. Overall, I think a new weapon class would be the best way to go with this. Since the current vehicle weapons we have are referred to as "Turrets" specifically, I wouldn't be surprised if hard-mounted weapons are introduced later when there are vehicles that can use them.

Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1283	Posted - 2013.04.12 22:08:00 - [11] - Quote Kitten Commander wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Kitten Commander wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Well, when I think Gunship, I think a Cobra or Apache. Or a Hokum or Tiger if you're in Europe. Even the smallest Fighter aircraft we make today have a larger body than an attack helicopter due in part to the fact that you want it to be as narrow at the front as possible to make it harder to shoot down. As far as weapons, I would think that aerial vehicles and possibly even MTACs would require a new class of body-mounted fixed-aim weapons, especially when you consider that guided air-to-air missiles are pretty much a necessity. You wouldnt need completely new mechanics for the weapon systems on these. LAA (1 person) 3 Fixed hardpoints (not moveable turrets) 1 x medium front mount that is a blaster 2 x small mounts that could either be dumbfire missles or lock on swarms (same damage potential) The damage from these should not be able to one-shot a tank. The speed/maneuverability should make up for the damage difference. VTOL Gunship (2 person) 3 slots - 1 turret and 2 x hardpoints Introduce a weapon that is similar to the HMG for the turret with a little bit more of a range buff but more bullet spread (same damage) 2 x small mounts that have same options as LAA 1 x pilot who manages the 2 x small mounts 1 x gunner who manages the turret As to the first part, the only missiles we have right now are dumbfire. Overall, I think a new weapon class would be the best way to go with this. Since the current vehicle weapons we have are referred to as "Turrets" specifically, I wouldn't be surprised if hard-mounted weapons are introduced later when there are vehicles that can use them. New weapon classes are fine but I am just saying that the mechanics for them are already in place. Swarms - lock on missles HMG - basically the same framework for a nose turret like an Apache style gunship would have. Dumbfires - same mechanics as a swarm without lockon. You would get more per shot but there would be no guidance and would be weaker against vehicles. This would also give LAA pilots different paths to skill into as it would either be an anti-infantry strafing vehicle or an anti-vehicle precision striker. Right. Personally, I find close-air-support boring as sin. I'm gonna be the one gunning down all those LAAs.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1283	Posted - 2013.04.13 00:36:00 - [12] - Quote Kitten Commander wrote: Well, its all about options just like with everything else in DUST. It will give people even more choices in how to win a district Oh hell yeah, I'm all over that.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1283	Posted - 2013.04.14 02:26:00 - [13] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Kitten Commander wrote: Well, its all about options just like with everything else in DUST. It will give people even more choices in how to win a district Oh hell yeah, I'm all over that. Actually, since I didn't mention it before, I had a thread open for a bit on a possible change of mechanics for District capture. It was actually a suggestion for how I thought it could work, but since the current system has already been announced, I guess this could be thought of as an alternate approach. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=559125#post559125 I post this because it relates pretty directly to the idea of roles for Fighters, LAAs, or whatever aircraft variants we get.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1285	Posted - 2013.04.15 03:33:00 - [14] - Quote Heathen Bastard wrote: Jakar Umbra wrote: Lvl 3: Fighter - The Fighter will be the main vehicle to gain and maintain air superiority by focusing on air to air combat with a single pilot controlling a variety of weapons that can only attack aerial vehicles. The Fighter should also have slots for various countermeasures Lvl 4: Fighter Bomber - This will be a heavy and slower version of the fighter and will be have two seats a pilot and co-pilot. The pilot will be the one flying and maneuvering onto the targets he will also have control over limited air to air weapons (choose wisely). The co-pilot will be the one in-control of all air to ground weapons and will need to guide the pilot onto the target. The co-pilot will also be in charge of countermeasures. ALL OF MY WANT! Please listen to this man CCP, Give us fixed wing aircraft!(I can't fly those damn dropships!) I'm still interested in how the racial pilot suits are going to balance out. On that subject, what are you all's thoughts on that? I personally was in mind of a suit with little to no high-or low slots, but has equipment slots for providing bonuses for vehicles that only that suit class can use, kind of like what it seems we'll have with the Command suits and the AoE bonuses that only they will likely be able to use.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1313	Posted - 2013.04.18 19:36:00 - [15] - Quote Kitten Commander wrote: No worries. I just wish we could get some involvement from a DEV to even let us know if this is something that will happen in the next couple builds or not. I'm right there with you. One of the main reasons I got into this game was so that I could specialize as a pilot, and I'd really like more information on what kind of options we'll have.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1317	Posted - 2013.04.19 15:35:00 - [16] - Quote Shouper of BHD wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Kitten Commander wrote: No worries. I just wish we could get some involvement from a DEV to even let us know if this is something that will happen in the next couple builds or not. I'm right there with you. One of the main reasons I got into this game was so that I could specialize as a pilot, and I'd really like more information on what kind of options we'll have. I got a speculation thread in geniral discusions all about the LAAs getting all the known facts about them, inclueding photos most havn`t seen explaining the turret mechanics and stuff, its called: [speculation] LAAs 4/18/13 real photos, trailers, gameplay and artwork. Yeah I saw your thread, and I'd recommend everyone in this one check it out.